Posted by Flower Pagan (68.35.113.192) on January 19, 2003 at 16:00:10:
In Reply to: Re: The UN caught Iraq in a lie and Bush was right! posted by Mikko (193.234.247.51) on January 19, 2003 at 06:13:30:
> > > > Hey, did you guys see it on the news that Iraq got caught lying about their weapons. So Bush has been right all this time. I saw it all on camera on TV less than 30 minutes ago! I figure the man was intuitive about these things because it takes one to know one. Bush is a hunter in real life and the way he ran Texas, I knew Saddam met his match!
> > > --I can think of several reasons why Bush might have known that there are such weapons in Iraq for sure, but his intuitive understanding isn't on the list. Undisclosed concrete facts go a lot further.
> > Please, will you disclose those concrete facts, don't leave me in ingorance.
> > Flower Pagan
> --It is a disclosed fact that when Reagan was the president, the USA supported Iraq buy weapons sales, knowing that Iraq already had chemical weapons. If they had them back then, it's only logical to assume they still have them, isn't it?
Yes, you have a point there. And if Nines, including Ronald Wilson Reagon, don't have a back bone to do what is right, then they need to stay out of office and compromise in less dangerous places where it is safe to go with the flow and not effect the lives of others. I remember they used to think Reagan was the beast because his name comes out 666. ha, ha, ha.
> Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurds some years ago. If they had chemical weapons back then, it's only logical to assume they still do, isn't it?
Yes. I also have forgotten about the chemical weapons that were used in "Desert Storm".
> Considering that Bush gets his information from intelligence organisations with thousands of people working for them and has numereous analysts, aides and experts working for him, I don't think it's ever about his intuitive understanding. It's not as if he's a psychologist (or a psychopath) who talks to someone and intuitively realizes what the problem is.
I thought it was about it took one to know one, in Bush case.
> The interesting thing here is that originally Iraq was accused of having nuclear weapon material. Now all the racket is about chemical weapons, that you could expect to find there anyway. An interesting change of focus.
Thanks for reminding me. I guess, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out if they had chemical weapons before, they still have them now. So, how could UN question whether or not Saddam has chemical weapons with his track record? I guess, somebody is trying to confuse us and the issue!